Search for: "In The Matter Of: Jones"
Results 2981 - 3000
of 6,019
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jun 2014, 4:21 pm
As Nicole Garton-Jones put it, “it will be up to individual lawyers themselves to decide what balance means to them and then make it happen. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 7:56 am
Stephen Mabey’s article brought those adjectives to my mind Mabey’s rightly deems lawyers to have real choice in the matter of achieving balance in their lives, while leaving the firm with deciding to accommodate the choices or not It’s the “or not” that raises serious questions The reality is that just as firms are in it for the money, so too are lawyers. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 4:32 pm
What matters is how the government learns those facts, not the facts themselves. [read post]
8 Jun 2014, 1:50 pm
Jones, a majority of concurring justices indicated willingness to explore such an approach. [read post]
7 Jun 2014, 3:15 pm
Jones views the matter through a purely partisan lens, concluding: In Texas, the legalization of the sale and consumption of marijuana would require the passage of a law. [read post]
6 Jun 2014, 2:29 pm
Jones, In re C.S., In re Hezzie R., Ryan D.L. v. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 4:41 am
And the unfortunate part of public information games is that the credibility of the DWC, DIR, and the government as a whole is hugely challenged - undermining confidence that the system is running as well as it can under the laws and regulations that govern it.I've never really understood government's penchant for secrecy unless it is a matter of security - even then, as history has shown, security interests either may be trumped up or inflated, or worse, non-existent at… [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 3:33 pm
Jones, 132 U.S. 945, 957 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring). [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 4:36 am
” As the Jones Day law firm noted in a May 2014 memo (here), the use of exclusive forum provisions has become “mainstream. [read post]
29 May 2014, 10:36 am
In the Ontario case of Morland-Jones v. [read post]
28 May 2014, 5:50 am
At first blush, Justice Harlan’s test only makes matters more confusing. [read post]
28 May 2014, 4:00 am
Morland-Jones v. [read post]
27 May 2014, 6:00 am
Consider, for instance, the Federal Employers Liability Act (as incorporated into the Jones Act), which states: Every common carrier by rail road . . . shall be liable in damages . . . in case of the death of such employee, to his or her personal representative for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee; and, if none, then of such employee’s parents; and, if non, then of the next of kin dependent upon such employee . . . . [read post]
23 May 2014, 2:01 pm
From Morland-Jones v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 5:35 pm
It wouldn't matter whether or not Exum was Jones' biological daughter. [read post]
21 May 2014, 7:07 am
Morland-Jones v. [read post]
19 May 2014, 5:46 pm
Privacy Concerns Escalate as Drones Are About to Take-Off – Washington, DC lawyer Alyssia Bryant of Keller and Heckman on the firm’s Beyond Telecom Law Blog Counterfeit Certification Marks: How to Certify that the “Certified” is Certified – Washington, DC lawyer Susan Neuberger Weller of Mintz Levin on the firm’s blog, Copyright & Trademark Matters Apple and Google agree to dismiss all current lawsuits between them, including SEP cases –… [read post]
19 May 2014, 6:00 am
The Jones Act incorporates FELA’s remedial scheme, and FELA case law also applies to the Jones Act. [read post]
17 May 2014, 8:42 pm
The shipping company filed a motion requesting the court dismiss the claim as a matter of law arguing that no such relief in provided by the Jones Act. [read post]
16 May 2014, 8:58 am
So this moggy is enormously grateful to his EIP colleague Matthew Jones, for preparing a report of this case, which came out at the same time as the Actavis v Lilly decision. [read post]
